Having watched Avengers again (in two dimensions, this time around), I'm pleased to report that I still love it. Obviously a lot of the wit loses its spontaneity when you're expecting it, but that lets you sit back and examine the rest of the film without being sensorily bombarded. For better or worse…
It stands out a lot more the next time you view Avengers that only one named character dies in this film. The scenes with that character have a definite air of melancholy if you know it's coming, and it only strengthens my feelings from my previous review in that there's some actual character development going on. Too bad it develops so steeply.
There are plenty of background casualties, of course, and they're not even red-shirts; they're just extras playing cannon-fodder. It leaves me with a nagging feeling that there was a reluctance to commit with the screenplay. It's been noted elsewhere that the ending can be described, at worst, as inconsequential since the whole thing could be conceivably played out again in Avengers 2. I understand why the big guns survive, and I'm not in favour of killing off established side characters as a sport, but there's a feeling that the story has been greenlit by Marketing before the final draft was typed up.
In other musings, I'd read on the Wiki page for the Chitauri that they're known as Skrulls in the Marvel universe courtesy of the Fantastic Four, but due to Fox having the rights to that series, they can't be named as such. If occurred to me like a big obvious slap in the face, that this also is likely the reason there's no mention of Spider-Man or the X-Men either. I could be wrong, it's just a thought. And one I'd like to see fixed in the future. Come on, Marvel, sort it out.
Other than that, very little to report. As was the case with last year's Thor, I didn't pick up much in the way of easter-eggs the second time round, although they're probably way out of my range anyway. It was still ridiculously entertaining, mind; a second-pass didn't change that.
Best moment: "...Puny god."
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
The day is here. It seems like only yesterday that Mrs Blackout and I had gotten to the end of Iron Man, and I made her sit through all the credits so that we could watch Sam Jackson silhouetted against the window of Stark Tower, turn and say to Robert Downey Jr, "I'm Nick Fury. I'm here to talk about the Avenger Initiative". I won't lie, I made a little squee noise. Since I was a wee one, I've always loved Marvel over DC, and if Iron Man had been a promise of the way things were going to go down, an all-out Avengers movie would be right up my street.
Four years and five lead-in movies later, and the day is here. The Avengers is on at the cinema. Or Marvel's Avengers Assemble if you live in the UK. I'm not sure why, but never mind.
The Plot: Earth is under threat from Loki, and the alien race, the Chitauri. The only hope of salvation lies in resurrecting an abandoned S.H.I.E.L.D. project, The Avenger Initiative, to combine the forces of Earth's (and Asgard's) greatest heroes. But the candidates for the team are spread far and wide, and they're not all known for their team spirit. A race against time and against evil begins as The Avengers assemble…
The Good: This film is a lot of fun. That seems to be the simplest way of putting it. It's ridiculously loud, possibly too long for some folks, and quite niche considering its mainstream marketing, but it's a lot of fun. Considering most of the backstories have been told already, there's a bare minimum of setup to Avengers. A voiceover at the start lets you know what the deal is, but other than that you pick it up along the way with back-references and scant exposition. There's not a lot of downtime in this movie, and considering the running time that's quite an achievement.
• The same humour that was present in the Iron Man movies returns in force in Avengers. A lot of this is down to Tony Stark/Iron Man, although the biggest belly-laugh of the film goes to The Hulk by a mile. When you watch it, you'll know the bit I mean because the whole cinema will be guffawing. There are a lot of chuckles in the film, but the laughs never outstay their welcome.
• There's an interesting amplification to some of the characters traits, this time around. Captain America seems more prissy and old-fashioned than he did in his own movie, Thor seems less carefree and his humility has all but vanished (and that was kinda the point of his film), and Iron Man is starting to seem more conceited and brash. Now I know that the idea is that the 'team' is made up of members who wouldn't normally be in a team, but their characters seem at odds with the ones we've seen previously. It works for this, anyway, but I'll be interested to see how the heroes are in their own subsequent sequels.
• No spoilers in this review, but there's some significant character development for one of the players, and I thought every aspect of it was handled greatly.
• There was a part in the climactic battle where The Hulk and Thor are standing on the back of a Chitauri snake/dragon, both smashing the living shit out of everything within reach. It was at this moment I noticed I was grinning like an idiot. The film's not just about breaking things for two hours, but the fact that it had escalated to that point made me immensely happy. The battle of New York is, for me, the enduring image of the film. Noisy, chaotic, and yet strangely sweet and good-natured, with me grinning like an idiot.
• Sam Jackson with an RPG launcher. Why can't more films have this?
• Stan Lee has a cameo, and it's fairly low-key for once. Well, for a Stan Lee cameo anyway. Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, but y'know...
The Bad: I'm not overly keen on the hastily constructed title-card saying 'Avengers Assemble' at the start of the film. It's clearly a drop-in as the US version has a different title (and hence, different card). Maybe it's so that the powers-that-be can tell where the bootlegs are coming from? It also goes against the grain of Captain America and Thor where the title-card wasn't presented until the end of the film. It's a very small point, and purely aesthetic, but it jarred with me.
If you haven't seen all the lead-in movies (Iron Man 1&2, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, Captain America), you may find yourself getting a little lost at times. It's not that the Avengers plot is complex (it's not), it's just that there's very little exposition of a lot of the things that are going on. You're expected to know about the Tesseract from last year's Captain America, and that Thor and Loki are half-brothers. They're mentioned in the film, but not in a way that'll explain them, more as a reminder.
Black Widow and Hawkeye are treated in much the same way, and they don't have their own lead-in movies. Both have appeared in the run-ups, but as incidental characters, so while they're visually familiar, the average audience member doesn't know too much about them. With Hawkeye, we learn that he's an excellent marksman/archer with no super powers as such, but I could have sworn that Black Widow is a low-level telepath/empath, even though this isn't fully explored. More on this, please.
There's not a lot said about The Chitauri. As a movie-viewer who doesn't read the comics or watch the various animated series*1, I feel like I should know more about them.
No Spider-Man? Not even a mention? Really? Oh, okay then.
Maybe it was just me, but the end seemed a little anti-climactic, for reasons I won't go into in this review. It was probably just because the adrenaline was still pumping from the previous two hours, though...
The Ugly: Nothing to report. Not for my money, anyways.
The 3rd Dimension: As with Thor and Cap from last year, the 3D's fairly well executed, it's just not necessary. There are a couple of 'ooh!' shots, but in a two-hour+ movie, you may want more than that. If 3D's your bag, then go for it, otherwise you shouldn't lose too much by going into the screen next door and paying a couple of quid less.
After the credits: There's a roll-call of the main cast with graphics behind. A short scene follows this (setting up Avengers 2 or Thor 2? I'm not sure, could be either. I know both will be made). Once you see the rolling-list of names, you can make your way out.
Worth £8+? Absolutely. The spectacle of Avengers Assemble is what cinema was invented for.
Ultimately, you already know if you're going to like Avengers. It's definitely part of the 'set' that's been built up over the last four years, and it's not going to be a great place to start if you haven't seen those. But if you enjoyed Marvel's run-up to this, you will love Avengers Assemble.
Despite what I've listed under The Bad...
Everything I'd hoped it would be. A thing of great beauty.
*1 These days, anyway. I'm afraid Star Wars takes up way too much of my free-time to get fully immersed in the Marvel universe again.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
#StarWarsTshirtFriday number 34.
27 April 2012. The Decepticon/Mandalorian crossover shirt.
This week's shirt has been added to the gallery. You can read more about how #StarWarsTshirtFriday started here.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Lockout 110 mins / Dir. James Mather , Stephen St. Leger
Let me get this straight, you've made Escape from New York with Mike out of Neighbours and Eli Dingle out of Emmerdale Farm, yeah? Mental...
The Plot: A man wrongly convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage against the U.S. is offered his freedom if he can rescue the president's daughter from an outer space prison taken over by violent inmates.
The Good: So is this what happens when game-designers write a screenplay? Our hero Snow (no, don't laugh - it gets sillier in the film, but I won't spoil that) has a brief backstory introduction (read: cutscene) at the start, then gets his overall mission which is broken down into smaller tasks (read: levels) and maguffins to chase, and even has a remote guide once he's on the prison-station which acts as a mapping system and health-monitor for the president's daughter. Downtime between action sequences is filled with heavy exposition from Snow's guides back on the police-station which serve to outline exactly what's going to happen for the next 15 minutes or so. It's so transparently like a game that I can't help but admire it; especially as most game-to-movie conversions are nowhere near as enjoyable as this.
And that's the odd thing. I found Lockout immensely fun, even though just about every aspect of the film has been flogged to death in the past. A brisk script helps matters (when they're not explaining things patiently to Snow / The Audience), and as silly as the concept clearly is, all the cast are playing it as straight as the script will allow. Many (and I mean many) of Guy Pearce's lines are the kind of dry witticisms that would fall flat or be overkill with other actors. But Guy aims for John McClane and manages to come out closer to Han Solo a lot of the time, and he's ridiculously likeable, if not at all original, as the rogue-hero of the movie.
The other thing that sets it apart from its contemporaries is the large amount of British casting (not 'all', but a lot of the key roles, certainly), and having the two lead inmates sport Scottish accents was a nice touch, even if they were brothers but didn't sound like they came from the same part of Scotland. Joseph Gilgun (Eli from Emmerdale, Woody from This is England) had enormous fun as the loose cannon Hydell, an inmate that's a beserker even among his peers. Lennie James (Morgan from The Walking Dead, Sol from Snatch) is also on good form and manages to put in quite an understated performance, albeit with his weird Massachusetts accent going on.
And other than that it's just, sling on the body armour, grab a shotgun, stay alive, infiltrate a prison, stay alive, rescue the girl before the prison sinks back into the Earth's atmosphere or is destroyed by the government, stay alive and be witty while you're doing it. And maybe prove your innocence as well. It won't be the greatest film you ever see, but it doesn't try to be anything other than a big noisy rollercoaster; it's only practical purpose is your enjoyment.
Oh, and there's a Wilhelm Scream too, which always makes me smile.
The Bad: Location/character title frames that are on-screen for too short a time to read, ridiculously fast cutting between shots and mumbled/garbled dialogue make the first 10 minutes of the film a little like hard work. Then you either acclimatise to this, or realise that the names and exposition aren't that important; I couldn't quite figure out which.
The Ugly: The credits feature a title card saying "Based on an original idea by Luc Besson". I'd contest the accuracy of that statement.
All-in-all: Don't take it at all seriously and you'll have a lot of fun.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
You're right, it's not the sort of thing I usually go for, but you know what? With Battleship last week, and Avengers on the horizon, I fancied something a bit different, so I thought I'd give it a go.
The Plot: (From Rotten Tomatoes / CBS) "When Britain's leading fisheries expert (Ewan McGregor) is approached by a consultant (Emily Blunt) to help realize a sheikh's (Amr Waked) vision of bringing the sport of fly-fishing to the desert, he immediately thinks the project is both absurd and unachievable. But when the Prime Minister's overzealous press secretary (Kristin Scott Thomas) latches on to it as a "good will" story, this unlikely team will put it all on the line and embark on an upstream journey of faith and fish to prove the impossible, possible…"
The Good:'Salmon Fishing…' is very British Film™. It's often charming, but rarely twee, which is a trap it could easily have fallen into. Much of the comedy is dry and understated, and McGregor and Blunt put in great turns as their respective 'it's tough having issues when you're British' characters. I should also mention that it's good to see Ewan in a part that doesn't involve his horrendous American accent, and is a reminder that he can actually act.
There are patches of stylisation in the form of letter, e-mail and text exchanges that I'd liked to have seen expanded upon. They're not used enough to be a feature of the film (and granted, some scenes work better without them), but it's as if the sequences that take place in the UK and those in Yemen were assembled by different directors. Neither style is worse than the other, they just don't quite gel together. I could have handled it being a little consistenty quirkier.
Speaking of quirky, Amr Waked as Sheikh Muhammed is the most interesting, and underused, character in the whole film. Quietly funny, determined and wiser than the rest of the protagonists, we see very little of him considering how much he's in the story. I'm aware that it's not 'his' story, but it's not the PM's Press Secretary's either, and we get to see her family life...
Oh, and me being me loved the fact that Ewan's called "Dr Jones" on-screen for a lot of this, and they even put in a slight nod to Raiders of the Lost Ark. Well, I took it as a reference, anyway. It occurred to me that I'd be quite happy to see Ewan star in an Indiana Jones prequel as Henry Jones senior, but that's a different blog post.
The Bad: Unfortunately, I picked up little-to-no chemistry between McGregor and Blunt. Which is odd, because they play their respective parts well enough, but I just didn't buy the unfolding relationship between the two of them. They start the film being short and bickery with each other (as is par for the course with this kind of thing), and although that dissolves into an easygoing friendship between the two of them, it never seems to go further than that. As a result, when Dr Jones professes his love for Ms Chetwode-Talbot, it surprised me more than any characters in the film. Likewise, when Harriet gets all teary in return I was a little puzzled as to why. Maybe I'm the wrong demographic*1 for that aspect of the film, I dunno.
There are also several clockwork-moments in the film, where plot devices (the argumentative wife, the returning boyfriend) click into place not only with thudding predictability, but also handled with no real care. The character transformation of Harriet's missing-in-action boyfriend is pretty astounding; Tom Mison practically wears a top hat and cloak upon his return, laying in bed and coming out with precisely the kind of borderline racist banter that Harriet would have spotted a mile off previously. It also robs her character of having to make any really involved decisions, when he's being kind-of-a-dick, and Dr. Jones is being kind-of-lovely.
Oh, and does Dr Alfred Jones have Asperger's? It's mentioned at one point in the script, but in a way that it's already been discussed, and then it's never mentioned again. It's not important, just a loose end I'd liked to have seen tied up. A bit like the thread he picks up off of Harriet's sofa, then uses later when he's making a fly; it's definitely there, just not mentioned. How much of this film is on the cutting room floor?
Ultimately, at the end of 'Salmon Fishing…', I genuinely wanted the river-project to be a success, and I had no feelings either way about the romance. So they did half of it right, at least.
The Ugly: Kristen Scott Thomas overplays her part a little, although the worst bits aren't actually her, but appear in the form of a typed instant-messaging conversation between Patricia Maxwell and the Prime Minister. Still, at least they didn't shoehorn Bill Nighy or Maggie Smith in there...
Worth £8+? In all honesty? Probably not, unless you're a massive fan of any of the leads. It's definitely very watchable, but you'd be hard pressed to take anything away from it. Everyone on-screen is on good form, but I suspect the film's faults lie with the story itself...
Chances are, you will enjoy it, you just might not be engaged by it at all.
*1 *1 By which I mean 'gender'.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
I almost didn't see this. If only because Horror as a genre doesn't really push my buttons any more, and also because the poster does little to make me think that TCITW is anything other than a by-the-numbers slasher flick. Thankfully, I'd caught some buzz from the internets that it's much more than that; indeed the phrase "game-changer" was used. That said, I immediately stopped reading the articles and went to see it spoiler-free. I'm glad I did.
The Plot: Five teenage friends go for a weekend break to a remote cabin out in the back of nowhere. The locals seem strange, and once they're unpacked, unsettling events take a terrifying turn. But something else is going on, too; a game is being played that's more sinister than even they can guess…
The Good: The film starts pairing the very traditional setup of the kids*1 packing and journeying to the woods, with scenes taking place in an underground control-bunker somewhere. The makers of tCITW do an excellent job of teasing out this (at first) secondary plot, while a 'live-action' classic horror movie takes place on the TV monitors in the bunker.
I can't really go into detail without spoiling the film. It's not a 'twist' as such, it's just the entire direction the film goes in. Aside from the control-room scenes, you get the impression something else is on its way, because most of the protagonists have been slaughtered by the 50-minute mark. And then when the tone of the movie shifts and you're going "aah, I see", Drew Goddard reminds you that you don't see, and shifts it again.
One of the strengths of TCITW (in my humble opinion) is that it goes from 'classic Horror', to 'meta-Horror', to 'batshit fucking crazy' so smoothly. Throughout everything that happens, including some Scream-style deconstruction of the genre, it made me smile that ultimately there were still supernatural forces at work. Although the curtain's lifted for the audience and characters alike, you aren't allowed to get too smug in what you think you know. It's not that the film is as 'mind-blowing' as some have suggested, but I don't know anyone who would have predicted the final scene. I pat them on the back for having done that.
Also worth mentioning is the humour. Both Richard Jenkins and Fran Kranz have genuinely funny dialogue, and delivery it brilliantly. They don't play 'comedy' characters, but in both cases, their humour is so dry it really takes the edge off the bleakness of the events unfolding...
The Bad: I fear this will become over-hyped, but without giving too much away all I can do myself is hype it more. I've seen people claim that this will change the way you view horror movies. Well, for a short while, maybe, but the things that make tCITW different don't really apply to other movies. Sure, there's a thought that maybe they could all be taking place in the same universe for the same reason (so to speak), but other movies have their own internal logic that makes the tCITW method not required. After all, while audiences enjoyed the Scream movies, it's not like people stopped making traditional slasher-films, is it?
The Ugly: Only two things I found disappointing: 1) Throughout the movie, I thought I was picking up Cthulhu type references. The final shot in the film disproved this. Bah. 2) I'm kind of surprised that Anna Hutchison's character wasn't used in a more threatening manner. Her eyes were unnerving me from her first scene before they'd even set off for the woods…
Worth £8+? If you're a fan of the genre, old or new, then yes. A "game changer"? I'm not so sure, but it's a very welcome alternate look at the horror movie.
*1 In the best tradition of slasher movies, the "teenagers" are clearly in their mid-to-late twenties. In the case of this particular film, I approve.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Really? Yeah, really. Watching the trailer for this, with their 'From Hasbro…' flashframe, I couldn't work out why they had anything to do with it. There didn't seem to be very much in the way of marketing opportunities for action figures (especially when the likes of Tron and Pirates of the Caribbean have all done so dismally in that area, recently). But as I tend to stay away from advance marketing, reviews and fluff-pieces before a movie, the facepalmingly obvious truth hadn't even registered in my brain. I mean, who in their right mind would make a film… not from an action figure concept… not even really from a board-game… but from a game that can be played with two pens and pieces of paper? If it sounds like a fucking ridiculous idea to you, then you're one of the people in the world who doesn't work for Hasbro or Universal. They made a film of the game battleships.
The Plot: Responding to a comms transmission sent to their planet, a scouting party of aggressive aliens trace the signal back to Earth to establish a command post and clear the way for an invasion force. Earth's only hope for survival rests with the people caught inside the aliens' protective forcefield, projected in the Pacific ocean…
The Good: Erm, Taylor Kitsch is pretty good. As with John Carter, he's funny, charming, but doesn't have quite the right amount of heft to pull off this leading role. Yet. In all honesty, I enjoyed the prologue-section of the film, where he's a lazy, drunken misfit, way more than everything that came after he joined the navy. Then again, after that section we're introduced to the rest of the cast, and it all starts to go downhill...
The Bad: "Ooh! We sent out a message to space, and now the aliens are coming to get us and we're all going to DIE!". Packed from the offset with Daily Mail levels of paranoia, this invasion-flick was never going to be an easy ride. But riding side-by-side with the pearl-clutching terror that we may not be alone in the universe is a method of delivery that's so clichéd that you can't actually pinpoint where you've seen the tropes before, they're so ingrained in the gung-ho, America-saves-the-world, bullshit we all got sick of after Independence Day*1. Battleship comes off like some bastard hybrid of Transformers and Jurassic Park, but with the fun and charm of neither.
There's a section near the start of the movie (when Kitsch's Alex Hopper has established himself in the navy), that takes place on an old-school Battleship™ and shows us the surviving members of its crew, all in their Hollywoodesque Old Age*2. Now, in a movie like Battleship, the callbacks are set up with all the subtlety and grace of a toddler playing with a hammer. All the characters have their own little hurdles to jump over, and the final act of the film darts between them so much that you almost forget the film stars aliens as well. In fact, I'd actually forgotten about the Old Timers™ when they save the day at the film's climax. When it comes down to three people*2 in a dinghy and Hopper points out the USS Missouri and its elderly crew might just be capable of saving the day, I actually said "oh, you are fucking kidding me…" out loud in the cinema. To paraphrase Martin Wolfenden, my toes curled so much they tore through the top of my shoes.
The Ugly: It's okay, I have a list…
• They play Battleships in the film. Yes, you read that right. In a fucking horribly contrived scene, they use a grid of tagged buoys in the Pacific ocean to essentially play Battleships against invading aliens. For this reason alone, everyone involved in greenlighting this movie should be humanely put to sleep.
• It's hard to tell what's more mechanical; the weaponry on display, the storytelling or Rihanna.
• What's Liam Neeson doing in this film? Seriously. I know he's made some ropey choices in recent years, but he just kind of pops up at either end of the film to phone in a performance of a cardboard character. It's embarrasing, really.
• The idea that an extra-terrestrial force would travel from another galaxy to invade our planet, and that for all their technical prowess would still be using projectile weaponry is laughable, frankly. And that will probably be the last time you laugh in this film.
• The aliens are remarkably close to humans in evolutionary terms, considering the characters spend so much time telling each other their physiology is based on lizards. Giving them three-fingered claw/hands and funny eyes doesn't quite cut it, I'm afraid.
• The alien craft that have landed in the Pacific have the ability to destroy the US destroyer ships. We see this because they blow one up (with Hasbro Battleship™ pegs, no less) to demonstrate the threat they pose. So as they're a preliminary invasion force, why not just destroy all the ships in the area? I know that'd make it a short film, but the lack of internal logic in this script is staggering.
• Speaking of which, the plot becomes a race against time to stop the aliens relaying a signal back to their homeworld, to signal the full invasion-force. We're told the satellite only passes the station in Hawaii once every 24 hours, and this becomes the climactic nexus for the various strands of characters in the movie. But back at the start, we saw the scouting party arrive at earth, when the satellite was beaming its message across the stars (we see the beam visually too, just to make sure we all know what it is). When the alien craft arrived, they smashed the fuck out of… yep, a satellite. So presumably that can't be the one that was transmitting the signal once a day. That can't be the one everyone's anticipating. That must have been another satellite, pushing out a visible beam in the direction of the aliens arrival. Mustn't it?
• Filling the soundtrack with AC/DC songs may have worked for Iron Man 2, but that was a one-off. Do you hear?
Worth £8+? If you like a plot that doesn't make a lot of sense, weak characters with little to do, and a script that was written on autopilot, then you'll enjoy Battleship. Then again, if those things are what you want, you deserve a movie like Battleship.
As crap as it is, I can't hate Battleship, as my expectations were already low to begin with. But I certainly can't like it, either.
*1 I'm not having a go at the U.S. there, by the way. I think even American audiences have got sick of it. Not that the feeling has stopped filmmakers from exploiting it. Still. *2 Apparently the Old Timers™ are actual Old Timers™ from the actual Navy™. As if that makes their lack of acting ability or terrible scripting acceptable. It fucking doesn't. *3 I'll call them 'people'. I can't call them 'characters' as they aren't that well defined. But they definitely have faces and limbs, so 'people'.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
#StarWarsTshirtFriday number 33.
20 April 2012. The 'It's a Trap!' shirt, from Teefury.
This week's shirt has been added to the gallery. You can read more about how #StarWarsTshirtFriday started here.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Jet Set Willy? In Megabloks?
Yeah, I totally did...
...I am a grown-up.
Update:
Then we made these:
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Another blind viewing, as previous to seeing this listed on Cineworld's website, I'd heard nothing at all about this movie, and seen even less. How prophetic that would turn out to be...
The Plot: Arriving from San Francisco to visit his relocated family in Spain, Will Shaw finds out that his father's job with the US government isn't as benign as he'd previously believed, and when his family are abducted by terrorists he's drawn into a web of unlikely allies and mistrust.
The Good: A fairly descriptive start, a swift turn fifteen minutes in, and then it's high-octane thriller until the end. For what it is, it's pretty competently done. Henry Cavill puts in a good turn as Will; an ordinary man trying to cope in an extraordinary situation. Bruce Willis and Sigourney Weaver both phone their performances in a little as Will's Dad and Will's Dad's Boss respectively, but that's kind of why they were hired, so you don't mind too much. It's just that…
The Bad: After having watched Abduction, Haywire and Safe House fairly recently, I'm starting to wonder how the CIA actually gets anything fucking done. There's clearly no-one in the entire organisation that can be trusted, and you think that they'd have a better profiling system for potential operatives. What this leads to is… you don't have to make it that twisty-turny. The audience is already expecting that, and making it more twisty just confuses matters, it doesn't make them better. The film isn't overly complicated, but this is 'compensated for' by having characters portrayed as ambiguous when they really shouldn't be (he's shooting at our goodie: he's clearly a baddie no matter which country he's working for).
• Colm Meaney turns up briefly at the end as a US CIA Agent for no discernible reason. Given that Sigourney Weaver's role in this is largely the same as in 'Abduction', and Meaney's is largely the same as 'Safe House', I'm going to pretend they're actually the same characters, and while these films aren't part of a fixed series, they're 'same universe' works. Am I allowed to do that?
• The incidental music's a little overbearing ('dark, ominous tones'), but you soon manage to tune it out when you're getting important (well…) plot points relayed in heavily accented pidgin English from characters whose names you can't quite remember.
• There's some hinting that Will's job back in the US is similar to his father's, and while it would explain how he could survive for so long being hunted by several armed groups, it doesn't explain why he's so inept when he's got a gun in his hands. Anyway, it isn't explained properly, so it's academic really.
• The fast cutting isn't quite enough to distract you from playing the missing props game. Will's swim-bag goes mysteriously missing in one shot, only to re-appear in the next, and at one point Lucia is wearing a denim shirt-type-thing over her dress when they're on the train, then it's gone for no reason whatsoever.
Spoilers - highlight to read: I expected Bruce Willis to come back at the end. Is that wrong? Who hires Willis for an action-thriller then has him killed twenty minutes in? Did he film him scenes during his weekend-off, or something? A-listing aside, the real reason I expected him to come back was because his death-scene was so unconvincing. But he doesn't come back. He's dead. Unbelievably, prematurely dead.
The Ugly: Considering the actual title, this is a dark film. I don't mean thematically dark, more 'what the bloody hell's going on'?. Stretches of the movie take place at night with little-to-no ambient lighting, and even during the daylight scenes, the director's fond of taking us into badly lit apartment blocks and underground car parks. If this was for talky scenes where the subdued visuals allow the audience to concentrate on important dialogue, then fair enough, but no. This is for shoot-outs, car chases and fist-fights. By the time you've factored in the hand-held cameras and rapid shot-cutting, other than the characters present and the fact that there's some manner of fracas I couldn't tell who was winning or losing. Best just wait and see who stands up at the end of it all, eh?
Normally, I'd recommend this for a night on the sofa with a couple of beers. But in all honesty, if I'm struggling to make out what's happening in a darkened auditorium specifically designed for watching movies, you stand no chance at all in your living room. Good luck.
Worth £8+? No.
I want to rate it more highly, but looking at all that on balance, I can't really. I get the feeling that in different hands, The Cold Light of Day could have been so much better.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Going through some paperwork eariler, and I found the safety leaflet from my old lightsaber...
Click for bigger, 865*538px, 151kb
Click for bigger, 865*538px, 163kb
Click for bigger, 865*538px, 159kb
It's charming how 'health and safety' from the past seems simultaneously patronising and yet completely ineffective...
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
CAUTION: Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
Hello. Been a couple of weeks, and these have been on my mind.
Series-3-era Dwarfers...
^^ Click for bigger. 1400*709px, 204kb, Opens in new window
Closer? Go on, then.
You're welcome.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
